Global Allies v. Brookline - Complaint

Case 4:16-cv-05574-DMR Document 1 Filed 09/30/16 Page 1 of 13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
SPENCER HOSIE (CA Bar No. 101777)

[email protected]
DIANE S. RICE (CA Bar No. 118303)
[email protected]
ANTHONY K. LEE (CA Bar No. 156018)
[email protected]
LYNDSEY C. HEATON (CA Bar No. 262883)
[email protected]
DARRELL R. ATKINSON (CA Bar No. 280564)
[email protected]
HOSIE RICE LLP
600 Montgomery Street, 34th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
(415) 247-6000 Tel.
(415) 247-6001 Fax
9
10
Attorneys for Plaintiff

GLOBAL ALLIES, LLC
11
12
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
13
14
GLOBAL ALLIES, LLC,

Case No. 16-5574
15
16
17
18
19
Plaintiff,
v.
BROOKLINE FURNITURE COMPANY,
L.L.C.
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Defendant.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND JuRY DEMAND
Case
No. 16-5574
Plaintiff Global Allies, LLC ("Global Allies" or "Plaintiff') hereby files its complaint
1
2
against defendant Brookline Furniture Company, L.L.C. ("Brookline" or "Defendant") for
patent infringement. For its complaint, Plaintiff alleges on personal knowledge as to its own
acts and on information and belief as to all other matters, as follows:
I.
PARTIES
6
1.
Global Allies is a limited liability company organized under the laws of the
7
8
9
State of California, with its principal place of business in California. Global Allies has
offices in California, and it directs its activities from California, where its President resides,
1o including its intellectual property strategy. Global Allies vigorously defends its intellectual
11
property rights in this District. In the past three and a half years Global Allies has filed two
12
suits in this District- both presided over by the Honorable Edward J. Davila-asserting
13
design patent infringement by competitors. One of these suits was styled Global Allies, LLC.
14
v. Charter Furniture Corp. and Lodging by Liberty, Inc., Case No. 5:13-cv-00651-EJD (N.D.
15
16
Cal.), and involved two related entities, one of which was a North Carolina corporation. The
17
other was styled Global Allies, LLC v. JF Furnishing LLC, JL Furnishing East LLC, and
18
Lone Meadow, LLC, Case No. 15-cv-02751 EJD (N.D. Cal.), and involved three related
19
entities, two of which maintained their principal places of business in Southern California,
20
21
with the other having its principal place of business in North Carolina. Global Allies'
intellectual property litigation counsel is based in this District. Global Allies' directs and
22
controls the enforcement of its intellectual property rights from this District. And, Global
23
24
Allies maintains files related to its intellectual property in this District

2.
25
Brookline is a limited liability company organized under the laws of the State
26
of North Carolina, with its principal place of business in North Carolina.
27
Ill
28
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
Case No. 16-5574
u.
3.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
This complaint asserts a cause of action for patent infringement under the
3 Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. 271. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter by
4
virtue of 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 28 U.S.C. 1338(a).

This Court has personal jurisdiction over Brookline. As set forth in greater
4.
6
detail below, Brookline's infringement of the patent-in-suit is willful and intentional.
7
8
9
Brookline had knowledge of the patent-in-suit and knew, or at least should have known, that
its activity infringed that patent. Brookline also had knowledge, or least should have known,
10
that Global Allies has is principal place of business in California. In willfully and
11
intentionally infringing Global Allies' intellectual property with knowledge that Global
12
Allies' is a California company, Brookline purposefully directed its wrongful activity at
13
California, causing harm to Global Allies in California.
14
5.
Venue is proper in this Court by virtue of 28 U.S.C. 1400(b) and 35 U.S.C.
15
16
289. Defendant willfully and intentionally infringed Global Allies' intellectual property
17
rights knowing that Global Allies controls those rights from this District. See ii 19, 21 &
18
26-33 below. As such, this Court has specific personal jurisdiction over Defendant, such that
19
Defendant resides here for venue purposes.
20
21
III.
INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT
Pursuant to Civil LR 3-2(c), this case should be subject to district-wide
6.
22
assignment because it is an Intellectual Property Action.
23
IV.
24
STATEMENT OF FACTS.
25
A.
The Plaintiff Global Allies and Its Patented Task Chairs.
26
12.
Plaintiff Global Allies is an innovative company that specializes in supplying
27
high-end, strikingly designed furniture to the hospitality (hotel) market, as described below.
28
Case No. 16-5574
13.
Over the past decade, Global Allies has invested significantly in product
research, design, and development to yield novel, market-defining designs. It owns a number
of important design patents.
4
5
14.
There are several important hospitality design shows held annually in the
domestic United States. These shows bring vendors and customers together, and give buyers
the opportunity to consider and review competing product lines. The three principal
7
8
9
10
hospitality design shows held annually are the Hospitality Design Show in Las Vegas, the
BDNY show in New York, and the BD West show in Southern California.
15.
A corporate hotel owner may have various brands. These brands are
11
frequently referred to as "flags." For example, Hilton Hotels has a brand/flag in Hilton, and
12
a separate brand/flag in Doubletree. The major domestic hotel corporations typically have
13
what is referred to as a "brand standard" for their various brands. For example, a particular
14
vendor's furniture product selected and endorsed by the hotel corporation for use in
15
16
properties bearing a particular flag. The selection of a particular vendor and product as being
17
included in a hotel chain's brand standard matters: it is a striking endorsement of quality and
18
novelty, and reflects the hotel buyer's conviction that that vendor's furnishings will support
19
and enhance the hotel brand.
20
21
16.
Even absent selecting and publishing brand standards, hotel corporations
frequently recommend particular vendor's products for flagged hotels.
22
17.
Given its innovative and patented designs, and the underlying quality of its
23
24
products, Global Allies has met with considerable success in becoming part of the brand
25
standard for major domestic and international hotel chains. Global Allies task chair products
26
are part of the brand standard for several major domestic hotel chains. For example, Hilton
27
Hotels has numerous brands which identify Global Allies and its products as constituting part
28
Case No. 16-5574
of the brand standard, including the Hilton, Doubletree, and Embassy Suites' flagged hotels.
2 To illustrate further, Starwood Hotels is and has been a significant Global Allies' customer,
3
and Starwood identifies Global Allies' task chairs as part of the Starwood Brand Standards
program, including for such top tier hotels as the Sheraton, and Four Points by Sheraton,
Aloft, and further recommended for their St Regis, Le Meridian, Westin and W Hotels to
name a few. In addition, Global Allies' patented task chairs are also recommended for use
7
8
9
by other hotel corporations for their flagged properties.

18.
As a result of Global Allies innovative designs, Global Allies is well known
10
among design firms that service the hotel market. Design firms hired to design hotel room
11
interiors will frequently identify a Global Allies' chair as the look they are going for in their
12
design packages. These design packages are used by the hotel owner or third-party
13
purchasing agent to solicit bids to supply chairs to hotels.
14
19.
Global Allies' success has bestowed on it a high profile in the hospitality
15
16
furniture industry. Given Global Allies' high profile, Global Allies' regular attendance at
17
industry trade shows, Global Allies identification as a brand standard or preferred chair, and
18
Global Allies frequent inclusion in design packages, Global Allies' competitors know that
19
Global Allies is located in California.
20
21
20.
Global Allies' success in the hospitality market reflects, in significant part,
their products' innovative design, a design that distinguishes and separates the Global Allies'
22
task chairs from competitive chairs in the hospitality industry.
23
24
21.
Global Allies widely publicizes that many of its designs are subject to patent
25
protection. The homepage of Global Allies' website states that it "[h]old[s] over 50 design
26
patents." The "About Us" page states that "Global Allies holds a large number of patents for
27
proprietary Banquet Chair and Task Chair designs[, and that t]hese unique products represent
28
Case No. 16-5574
significant innovation in Banquet and Task seating and are available exclusively from Global
Allies." The website tab for "Task Chairs" includes images of Global Allies task chairs-
including one applying the design protected by the patent at issue here-below the statement:
"Global Allies actively enforces any and all relevant patent protection issues, including but
not limited to the chairs featured below." And, Global Allies website features a "Patents" tab
which list the numbers of Global Allies' patents, including the number of the patent at issue
7
8
9
here. Global Allies also widely indicates that many of its designs are patent protected on
materials it sends out, including on chair specifications, catalogues, and print advertisements.
10
Given Global Allies' well publicized intellectual property strategy, Global Allies'
11
competitors know that Global Allies maintains a large patent portfolio that covers many of its
12
chair designs. Global Allies also frequently lists a contact number with a "415" area code in
13
materials it disseminates, including on its webpage, in brochures, and on print
14
advertisements. As such, its competitors know that Global Allies is located in this District,
15
16
17
which includes the area that encompasses the 415 area code.
22.
One of Global Allies' innovative patented designs is reflected in U.S. Design
18
Patent No. D654,730, filed May 12, 2011, and issued February 28, 2012 (the '730 Patent").
19
This patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A. Global Allies refers to this design and task chair
20
21
as the "Laguna Task Chair."

23.
Reproduced below is an exemplary figure describing the claimed Laguna Task
22
Chair design:
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No. 16-5574
FIG. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
'730 Patent, Fig. 1.
14
B.
Defendants Offered to Knocked Off the Laguna Task Chair.
24.
Defendant has either offered to sale or actually sold task chairs that infringe
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Global Allies' '730 Patent.

25.
Defendant was awarded a project to produce chairs for the Hampton Inn &
Suites, Downtown Columbus (the "Hampton Columbus Project"). To secure this project,
Defendant agreed to fill an order calling for the Laguna Task Chair. Defendant intends to
complete this project through the production, delivery, and installation of chairs that
22
knockoff Global Allies' Laguna Task Chair.
23
24
25
C.
Defendant's Infringement is Willful.
26.
The Laguna Task Chair is not the only Global Allies' design Defendant
26
knocked off. Defendant listed on its website a product that was visually identical to Global
27
Allies' bestselling Coronado Task Chair, the design of which is protected by U.S. Patent No.
28
Case No. 16-5574
1
2
3
D622,987 (the '"987 Patent"). (It is the '987 Patent that was the subject of Plaintiffs prior
two infringement actions in this District.)
27.
On June 20, 2016 Global Allies' counsel sent Defendant's President and
C.E.O. a cease and desist letter. This letter included the San Francisco address of Global
5 Allies' counsel. The June 20, 2016 letter enclosed both am image of Defendant's website
6
with the infringing offering and a copy of the '987 Patent. In addition, the June 20, 2016
7
8
9
10
letter enclosed, for Brookline's "reference," a list of Global Allies' patents. This list
included the '730 Patent, the patent now in-suit.
28.
On July 12, 2016 Defendant's counsel responded by letter, addressed to
11
Global Allies' counsel in San Francisco, that, "in response to [Global Allies'] demands,"
12
Defendant "removed all listings of the alleged infringing product from its sales materials
13
including specifically its website."
14
29.
On July 20, 2016, the design firm for the renovation of the Hampton Inn &
15
16
Suites Downtown Columbus issued a specification and request for quote for 179 task chairs.
17
The specification called for the "Laguna Task Chair" by name. The specification also
18
included an image of the chair for which quotes were solicited. The image was a picture of a
19
Global Allies' Laguna Task Chair, the Global Allies' product that applies the design
20
protected by the '730 Patent. The specification also specifically identified the
21
"manufacturer" of the chair as "Global Allies." And, the specification provided the
22
dimensions for the Laguna Task Chair (to a quarter of an inch).
23
24
25
30.
Reproduced below is an excerpt of the Hampton Columbus Project task chair
specification:
26
27
28
0RIGfNAL COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
Case No. 16-5574
MAtiJUFAClUll~fl
Global AUkii;
PRODUCT NAME Arm No.

Laguna Tasi!< Chair
COi.OR / rlrllSII
Seat/back:
DL Couch, fleminir
lmognHo Ul!HHt'l 2
JJ%, p<:olyurnthmll;!, 67% polvc5tl:lr
NFF'A 16(}/UFAC, Cal 117, ASTM E84 unadh1:recl class
'l 5 lj,CJ(MJ Dr!
4
5
6
DIMENSIOtlS
19,7:S"Wx 23.25"0 X3ii"38 11 H
8
9
31.
Despite the specification itself providing notice that the chair design included
10
in the specification was a Global Allies' design, and despite being on notice of the '730
11
12
Patent and Global Allies' Northern California location as of at least June 2016, and just days
13
after agreeing to cease and desist infringement of another Global Allies' patent by way of
14
letter addressed to San Francisco, Defendant bid on the Hampton Columbus Project, offering
15
to produce the exact chair called for in the specification.
16
17
32.
Defendant could have submitted an alternative design, but it did not.
Defendant won the bid, and entered into a contract to produce chairs that infringe the '730
18
Patent. Defendant's infringement is deliberate. Defendant knew that the Laguna Task Chair,
19
20
the chair it agreed to slavishly copy, embodied the patented Global Allies' design.
33.
21
Defendant has offered, and is offering, to sell chairs that apply the design
22
protected by Global Allies' '730 Patent, and intends to make and sell chairs that infringe the
23
'730 Patent. Faced with Defendant's willful and ongoing infringement Global Allies brought
24
this suit.
25
Ill
26
27
III
28
Case No. 16-5574
COUNTI
PATENT INFRINGEMENT
(The '730 Patent)
4
5
6
34.
Global Allies incorporates and realleges, as though fully set forth herein, the
allegations contained in paragraphs 1-3 3 above.

35.
On February 28, 2012, United States Patent No. D654,730 S (the "'730
Patent") entitled "Task Chair" was duly and legally issued. A true and correct copy of the
'730 Patent is attached as Exhibit A (and incorporated herein by reference).
36.
Isaac K.ubryk is the inventor of the '730 Patent. The '730 Patent was assigned
10
to Plaintiff. Plaintiff Global Allies is the sole legal and rightful owner of the '73 0 Patent.
11
12
37.
Defendant makes, uses, imports, exposes for sale, offers to sell, and/or sells
13
products that infringe the '730 Patent through applying, or offering to apply, the patented
14
design and/or colorable imitations thereof to articles of manufacture, as alleged above in
15
paragraphs 24 through 25. Plaintiff has never authorized Defendant's activities. Defendant's
16
conduct constitutes infringement under 35 U.S.C. 271(a).
17
38.
Defendant's infringement of the '730 Patent is willful. As alleged above in
18
paragraphs 26 through 33 Defendant has had notice of the '730 Patent since at least June
19
20
2016, and knew the Hampton Ohio Project specification listed a Global Allies task chair.
21
Yet, Defendant continues to make, use, expose for sale, offer for sale and/or sell chairs that
22
infringe the '730 Patent despite knowledge that its actions constitute infringement of the
23
valid '730 Patent.
24
25
39.
As a result of the infringement by Defendant, Plaintiff has been damaged, and
will continue to be damaged, until Defendant is enjoined from further acts of infringement.
26
27
28
Case No. 16-5574
40.
Defendants will continue to infringe unless enjoined by this Court. Plaintiff
2 faces real, substantial and irreparable damage and injury of a continuing nature from
3
infringement for which Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for entry of judgment:
A.
that the patent-in-suit is valid and enforceable;
B.
that Defendant has infringed the claim of the patent-in-suit;
C.
that Defendant's infringement of the claim of the patent-in-suit was willful;
D.
that Defendant account for and pay to Plaintiff all damages caused by the
7
8
9
10
11
infringement of the patent-in-suit, which by statute can be Defendant's total profits, but
12
which, also by statute, can be no less than reasonable royalties;
13
E.
that the damage to Plaintiff be increased by three times the amount found or
14
assessed pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 284 and that Defendant account for and pay to Plaintiff the
15
16
17
increased amount;
that this Court issue a preliminary and final injunction enjoining Defendant,
F.
18
its officers, agents, servants, employees and attorneys, and any other person in active concert
19
or participation with it, from continuing the acts herein complained of, and more particularly,
20
that Defendant and such other persons be permanently enjoined and restrained from further
21
infringing the '730 Patent;
22
G.
that Plaintiff be granted pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on the
23
24
25
damages caused to it by reason of Defendant's infringement of the patent-in-suit;

H.
that this Court require Defendant to file with this Court, within thirty (30)
26
days after entry of final judgment, a written statement under oath setting forth in detail the
27
manner in which Defendant has complied with the injunction;
28
10
Case No. 16-5574
1
2
3
4
I.
that this be adjudged an exceptional case and the Plaintiff be awarded its
attorney's fees in this action pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 285;

that this Court award Plaintiff its costs and disbursements in this civil action,
J.
including reasonable attorney's fees; and
K.
that Plaintiff be granted such other and further relief as the Court may deem
6
just and proper under the current circumstances.
7
8
9
Dated: September 30, 2016
Respectfully submitted,
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Isl Spencer Hosie

[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
HOSIE RICE LLP
Transamerica Pyramid
(415) 24 7-6000 Tel.
(415) 247-6001 Fax
GLOBAL ALLIES, LLC
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
11
Case No. 16-5574
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1
2
Plaintiff, by its undersigned attorneys, demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
Dated: September 30, 2016
Respectfully submitted,
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Isl Spencer Hosie

[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
HOSIE RICE LLP
Transamerica Pyramid
(415) 247-6000 Tel.
(415) 247-6001 Fax
14
15

GLOBAL ALLIES, LLC
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12
Case No. 16-5574
Case 4:16-cv-05574-DMR Document 1-1 Filed 09/30/16 Page 1 of 7
EXHIBIT A
IIIIII IIIIIIII Il lllll llllllUSOOD654730S

llll lllll lllll lllll lllll l l l lllllll I IIIII IIII
(12)
(54)
(76)
United States Design Patent
(10)
Kubryk
(45)
TASK CHAIR
Isaac Kubryk, Lockeford, CA (US)
Inventor:
14 Years
(**)
Term:
(21)
Appl. No.: 29/373,703
(22)
Filed:
(51)
(52)
(58)
LOC (9) CI . .................................................. 06-01

U.S. Cl. .......................................... D6/500; D6/366
Field of Classification Search ........... D6/334-336,
D6/364, 365,366, 371-373, 374,375,376,
D6/379, 380, 500-502; 297/411.27, 411.28,
297/440.11, 445.1, 446.1, 452.12, 452.19,
297/452.48
See application file for complete search history.
References Cited
U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS
D235,233
D241,288
D253,205
D260,204
D279,947
D320,704
S
S
S
S
S
S
* 6/1975 Prizlow ..........................

* 9/1976 Tacke .............................
* 10/1979 Buhk .............................
"' 8/1981 Sapper ...........................
* 8/1985 Ballarini ........................
* 10/1991 Monesi ..........................
..... " ....... ,, ..
' 'I
r,,.:-:-::.).::'
D370,805
D391,424
D611,276
D611,738
D611,739
D612,l 75
S
S
S
S
S
S
*
*
.*
*
*
*
6/1996
3/1998
3/2010
3/2010
3/2010
3/2010
US D654, 730 S
**
Feb. 28, 2012
McDiannid ...................
Rafte1y ..........................
Kub1yk ..........................
Kub1yk ..........................
Kub1yk ..........................
Kub1yk ..........................
D6/502
D6/500
D6/500
D6/500
D6/500
D6/500
* cited by examiner
May 12, 2011
(56)
Patent No.:
Date of Patent:
:::.\::.~;:;:J}i/
D6/366
D6/366
D6/366
D6/366
D6/501
D6/366
Primary Examiner - Mimosa De

(74) Attorney, Agent, or Firm -Audrey A. Millemann;
Weintraub Genshlea et al.
(57)
CLAIM
The omamental design for a task chair, as shown and
described.
DESCRIPTION
FIG. 1 is a perspective view of a task chair, looking toward the
right front corner, showing my new design;
FIG. 2 is a front view thereof;
FIG. 3 is a back view thereof;
FIG. 4 is a right side view thereof;
FIG. 5 is a top view thereof; and,
FIG. 6 is a bottom view thereof.
The broken lines shown in the drawing are for illustrative
purposes only and form no part of the claimed design.
1 Claim, 5 Drawing Sheets
U.S. Patent
Feb.28,2012
"
.. ,.
..:. .. \ ~.
:
I
. ,, ........ , ...... "" -
...
"....
;"'1'" \ 0 .
,..,.,..
US D654, 730 S
FIG. 1
............. '
; .... :
r . . .. '
i:~
.....
Sheet 1 of 5
.. . .
"1
..
U.S. Patent
Feb.28,2012
US D654, 730 S
Sheet 2 of 5
FIG. 2
......
\ :.,
- ." I : ~
.'
. .. ..., .
..
.
...:,":.
,. ..
. ,;
.,
...,
..
.. :
..
., .
.,..
.....
'.
,, /
o :
1 .. \
....., .....
.'..
::
:-
.I! '.
...
: ....
. ....
. :" . ' . , ...

.. . . . . . .
"""
. . ., ....... ,.
, _:
.*:
"".
''\,
"" ...
. .....
....
U.S. Patent
Feb.28,2012
US D654, 730 S
Sheet 3 of 5
FIG. 3
... '.. .."'~
~ :; '-.;:.._. '
' .
....
... t
'"'
::-:
\':
....
:,
,l
,_. "'I
..
..:~:1-,
"",
.....
.~"i
::
,,,
..
~.
. -:I
.y .
..,, ::..
..."'\,
-~-;
.,
'':<
...
:~
\.
.....
:.......
\ .""~
.,.
:.\~i
.,. ,,:
~~:,(i~~:;ib>1tiJ
..iej:::'._;:_;~:.: ,-.:,/ f(}~'.}ti;,='.:;;,~'.
U.S. Patent
Feb.28,2012
Sheet 4 of 5
US D654, 730 S
FIG. 4
U.S. Patent
t.:.r." ...... '

.,,..,.,..;.,
'., ..
:
Feb.28,2012
. ,. ........ - ..
...
US D654, 730 S
FIG. 5
\'
......
'.
, ........
:~~,::.: ,:. J,..: I,!."',' ; ' .,.,

~
Sheet 5 of 5
,,
....
-~
..
.:
.
.
,',.
...
. .,
FIG. 6
I_.
Io
.. ,
.. :~
.... ~ .... : :. ........... :'' ;,: . : t.: ;t-~
,.,,
........... .
........-.
.IS-CAND 44 (Rev. 07/16)
CIVIL COVER SHEET
The JS-CANO. 44 civil cover sheet and the infor!nation contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by Jaw
except as. P.ri:iv1ded bY, i?cal rules of court. TlllS form, approved in its original form by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974 is required for the Cle;k of
'
Court to 1n1t1ate the CIVIi docket sheet. (Sh'b' INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAO/I OF THIS FORfvf.)
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS
DEFENDANTS
Global Allies, LLC
Brookline Furniture Company, L.L.C.
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff
/Marin, CA
(EXCEPTIN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)
County of Residence of First Listed Defendant
NOTE:
(C) Attorneys (Finn Na111e, Address, and Telephone N11111be1~
(IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)

IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED,
Attorneys (If Known)
Spencer Hosie, Diane S. Rice, Anthony K. Lee, Lyndsey C. Heaton, Darrell R.

Atkinson
Hosie Rice LLP
600 Montgomery St,, 34th Fl., San Francisco, CA 94111, 415.247,6000
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an

(] I
[:112
JEl 3
U.S. Government
Plaintiff
CJ] 4
U.S, Government
Defendant
III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an "X" in One Box for Plaint ill
"X" in One Bo:, Only)
(Fo1 Diversity Cases Only)
Federal Question
(U.~~ Govem111e111 Nol a Party)
Diversity
(lndicale Citizenship of'l'arlie., in lle111 Ill)
IV. NATURE OF SUIT

CONTRACT :
>
11 O Insurance
120 Marine
130 Miller Act
l 40 Negotiable Instrnment
150 Recove1y of Overpayment
Of Veteran's Benefits
151 Medicare Act
C] 152 Recovery of Defaulted
Sh1dent Loans
(Excludes Veterans)
153 Recovery of Overpayment
of Veteran's Benefits
160 Stockholders' Suits
190 Other Contract
195 Contract Prod11ct Liability
196 Franchise
REAL PROPERTY
210 Land Condemnation
220 Foreclosure
230 Rent Lease & Ejectment
240 To1ts to Land
245 T01t Product Liability
290 All Other Real Property
V. ORIGIN (Placea11
@ I Original
Proceeding
(Place an "X" in One Box Only)

' .
,,;, . .: .
TORTS
"X"i11011eBoxonly)
State Court
OJ 3 Remanded from
'
Appellate Court
[J4
Ci tize11 of Another Slate
[J2
[JI 2 Incorporated and Principal Place
ill
5 @5
bi!
of Business In Another Stale
013 CJ
Ll]625 Drng Related Seizure

r:;,1
of Prope1iy 21 USC 881
Li21690 Other
o::c..,
3 Foreign Nation
BANKRUPTCY.,,.>
@422 Appeal 28 USC 158

1]1423 Withdrawal
28 USC 157
CG
CJ6
OTHERSTATUTES . .
[JI 375 False Claims Act

[JI 376 Qui Tam (31 USC
~ 3729(a))
[J] 400 State Reapportionment
'>PROPERTY:RIGHTS <
;820 Copyrights
830 Patent
840 Trademark
.. >t;ABOR '
i;ill710 Fair Labor Stm1dards
Act
O)no Labor/Management
Relations
[]740 Railway Labor Act
[]751 Family mid Medical
Leave Act
[J790 Other Labor Litigation
Q791 Employee Retirement
Income Security Act
/SOCIAL-SECURITY :
~861 RIA (1395ff)

~862 Black Lung (923)
i--!J863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
i.;..(,,864 SS!D Title XVI
b!J865 RSI (405(g))
FEDERALTAX SUITS
L;J870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff
or Defendant)
[]871 IRS-Third Party
26 USC 7609
JJl,!M!GRATION
ITiJ 410 Antitrnst

1430 Banks and Banking
450 Commerce
460 Deportation
470 Racketeer Influenced an<
~'
Co1Tupt Organizations
480 Consumer Credit
490 Cable/Sat TV
850 Sec11rities/Commodities/
Exchange
Dl.'.-'I 890 Other Statutory Actions
[] 891 Agricultural Acts
DJ 893 Environmental Matters
[J 895 Freedom of lnfonnation
Act
wJ 896 Arbitration
[J 899 Adminishative Procedure
Act/Review or Appeal of
Agency Decision
(J 950 Constitutionality of
State Statutes
1.J462 Naturalization Application

bJ465 Other Immigration
Actions
ffiJ 4 Reinstated or
DEF
Incorporated or Pdncipal Place

a I ofBusiness
In This State
J
OJ
CJ1 2 Removed from
PTF
DJ
' \ ;\'.. ' .FORFEITURE/PENALTY.
PERSONAL IN.JURY
PERSONAL INJURY
Q 310 Airplane
Dl365 Persohal Injmy[] 315 Airplane Product
Prod11ct Liability
Liability
[]367 Health Care/
QI 320 Assault, Libel &
Plrnnnaceutical
Slander
Personal Injury
[ii 330 Federal Employers' . Product Liability
Liability
l]]J368 Asbestos Personal
!Ii1 340 Marine
Injury Product
IT:] 345 Maiine Product
Liability
Liability
~ERSONAL PROPERTY
[] 350 Motor Vehicle
370 Othe1 Fraud
Cl) 355 Motor Vehicle
371 Truth in Lending
Prod11ct Liability
380 Other Personal
IJI 360 Other Perso1ial
Prope1ty Damage
Injury
(J385 Property Damage
Cl) 362 Personal Injury Product Liability
Medical Malpractice
CIVIL RIGHTS
PRISONER PETITIONS
..;J 440 Other Civil Rights
Habeas Corpus:
~ 441 Voting
[]463 Alien Detainee
;J 442 Employment
Cl]510 Motions to Vacate
443 Housing/
Sentence
Accommodations QI 530 Generul
445 Amer. w/Disabilities- [J535 Death Penalty
Employment
Other:
[jJJ 446 Amer, w/Disabilities- ~540 Mandamus & Other
Other
550 Civil Rights
Cl) 448 Education
555 Prison Condition
560 Civil Detainee-
Conditions of
Confinement
DEF
Citize11 of This State
Citizen or Subject of a
Foreign Country
I ..
and One Box.for Defendant)
PTF
Reopened
[;51 5 Transferred from

-
Another District
(specijy)
QiJ 6 Multidistrict
Litigation-Transfer
!Ill 8 Multidistrict
Litigation-Direct File
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do 11ot c/te}11r/stlictioll(1/ statutes 1111/ess diversity):
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION
35
1--
271
u_.s_.c_._-,-- , . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Brief description of cause:

Design patent Infringement case
VII. REQUESTED IN [,]!J CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION

DEMAND $
CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
___C_O_MP
__L_AIN
__T__:_ _ _ _UN_D_E_R_R_U_L_E_23_,_Fe_d_._R_.c_1_v_.P_._ _ _ _ _ _ _ Damages, Injunction, etc. _ _,JU:..=R.:. :Y:..=D::::.E;.:. M:.:.A:::.N.:c:D:..::_ _.@
...w;,__Y:...;e:.::s__..[ill_,1'-N:._:_::.o_ _
VIII. RELATED CASE(S),
DOCKET NUMBER 5: l 3-cv-0065 l & 3: 15-cv-0275:
IF ANY (See i11s1r11c/ion,):
JUDGE Hon, Edward J. Davila
IX. DIVISIONAL ASSIGNMENT (Civil Local Rule 3-2)
(Place an "X" in One Box Only)
CJ! SAN FRANCISCO/OAKLAND [JSANJOSE DJ EUREKA-MCKINLEYVILLE
DATE: 09/30/2016
SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD: Isl Spencer Hosie

Global Allies v. Brookline - Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Global Allies v. Brookline - Complaint

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Global Allies v. Brookline - Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 4:16-cv-05574-DMR Document 1 Filed 09/30/16 Page 1 of 13

SPENCER HOSIE (CA Bar No. 101777)

Attorneys for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

GLOBAL ALLIES, LLC,

ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND

Case 4:16-cv-05574-DMR Document 1 Filed 09/30/16 Page 2 of 13

against defendant Brookline Furniture Company, L.L.C. ("Brookline" or "Defendant") for

acts and on information and belief as to all other matters, as follows:

Allies maintains files related to its intellectual property in this District

of North Carolina, with its principal place of business in North Carolina.

Case No. 16-5574

Case 4:16-cv-05574-DMR Document 1 Filed 09/30/16 Page 3 of 13

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

virtue of 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 28 U.S.C. 1338(a).

Allies' is a California company, Brookline purposefully directed its wrongful activity at

California, causing harm to Global Allies in California.

Venue is proper in this Court by virtue of 28 U.S.C. 1400(b) and 35 U.S.C.

Defendant resides here for venue purposes.

Pursuant to Civil LR 3-2(c), this case should be subject to district-wide

The Plaintiff Global Allies and Its Patented Task Chairs.

Plaintiff Global Allies is an innovative company that specializes in supplying

Case No. 16-5574

Case 4:16-cv-05574-DMR Document 1 Filed 09/30/16 Page 4 of 13

of important design patents.

and enhance the hotel brand.

Even absent selecting and publishing brand standards, hotel corporations

frequently recommend particular vendor's products for flagged hotels.

Case No. 16-5574

Case 4:16-cv-05574-DMR Document 1 Filed 09/30/16 Page 5 of 13

by other hotel corporations for their flagged properties.

As a result of Global Allies innovative designs, Global Allies is well known

purchasing agent to solicit bids to supply chairs to hotels.

Global Allies' success has bestowed on it a high profile in the hospitality

Global Allies is located in California.

Global Allies' success in the hospitality market reflects, in significant part,

Case No. 16-5574

Case 4:16-cv-05574-DMR Document 1 Filed 09/30/16 Page 6 of 13

materials it disseminates, including on its webpage, in brochures, and on print

One of Global Allies' innovative patented designs is reflected in U.S. Design

as the "Laguna Task Chair."

Reproduced below is an exemplary figure describing the claimed Laguna Task

Case No. 16-5574

Case 4:16-cv-05574-DMR Document 1 Filed 09/30/16 Page 7 of 13

'730 Patent, Fig. 1.

Defendants Offered to Knocked Off the Laguna Task Chair.

Global Allies' '730 Patent.

Defendant's Infringement is Willful.

Case No. 16-5574

Case 4:16-cv-05574-DMR Document 1 Filed 09/30/16 Page 8 of 13

On July 12, 2016 Defendant's counsel responded by letter, addressed to

including specifically its website."

Reproduced below is an excerpt of the Hampton Columbus Project task chair

Case No. 16-5574

Case 4:16-cv-05574-DMR Document 1 Filed 09/30/16 Page 9 of 13

PRODUCT NAME Arm No.

19,7:S"Wx 23.25"0 X3ii"38 11 H

to produce the exact chair called for in the specification.

Defendant could have submitted an alternative design, but it did not.

Case No. 16-5574